MME schema v1

[Mason, Ingrid]

Hi there,

 

MME Schema draft version 1 attached.  Please take a look and comment.  I haven't resolved the issue of relationships and what to call them. 

 

In the interests of simplicity I'm inclined to stick with the idea of:

 

isManagedBy

isManagerOf

 

to reflect the collection to party relationship in terms of its actual management and care.  There is collection material that is kept and managed by a museum that is actually owned (or IP rights are owned) by people external to the museum.  The Jenny Kee collection is the example in mind - the Powerhouse manages this collection, but the rights some of it are owned by Jenny Kee. 

 

I agree with Lynne that isSubjectOf is more meaningful for collections that are formed around a person and their life's activities.  I have handled that in this schema with indicating that in subject/type/local/uncontrolled vocab.  We could have a royal collection and that would be about Queen Elizabeth etc and the rest of the British royal family.  Other ideas are welcomed here..

 

I'm also aware that using isPartOf seems to imply that a collection is a subset of a larger collection whereas hasPartOf seems to indicate that there is an overlap between collections.  Some good examples would help here... e.g. tin toy collection isPartOf toy collection, whereas Hedda Morrison hasPartOf Netsuke collection.  This hasPartOf could cause quite some pointing, e.g. the many collections in museums are multiple object type in composition and contain photographs could ostensibly have hasPartOf Photographic Collection in their metadata. 

 

Look forward to having your feedback.

 

Ingrid

 

ps. haven't incorporated Basil's thoughts just yet.. I've the relatedness of data a little open in this example. 

 

 

Ingrid Mason

Digital Project Manager
Powerhouse Museum

w. http://www.powerhousemuseum.com

e.  ing...@phm.gov.au

p.  02 9217 0432

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This email and attachments are for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or legally privileged information or material that is copyright of Powerhouse Museum or a third party. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission. Any views expressed in this message and attachments are those of the individual sender and the Powerhouse Museum accepts no liability for the content of this message.

[Tim Sherratt]

Ingrid and all.

A few quick comments....

Identifiers - you've thrown a variety of identifiers together even
though they seem to identify different things.

I'm not sure whether the local identifier and the handle are meant to
identify the metadata record about the collection or the collection
itself. I suppose the local id would be the collection and the handle
could identify the metadata record and supply the 'key' required by
ARDC.

The NLA party id (presumably) identifies the institution that
holds/manages the collection. The collection URL identifies
(perhaps...) the collection itself. The party id should be in related
objects, and the URL field should be elsewhere

I'm assuming too that the DateModified and DateAccessioned relate to
the metadata record about the collection and not the collection
itself.

I general I suppose a clearer delineation between the stuff that
relates to the metadata record (is that the metametadata?) and the
collection itself would be useful.

I think temporal information should go in the temporal field. You can
include text descriptions of temporal periods in RIF-CS, and it would
seem better to identify such information as 'temporal' rather than
just lumping in a local subject field. You could of course include it
as a subject as well.

Similarly I think using text values in subject fields for people/org
associations is a bad idea. You lose any ability to identify people
uniquely. If you use PA ids you can always such back human-readable
labels.

But I think we need a lot more discussion on the party stuff, so I'm
leaving it there for now...

Cheers, Tim

[Mason, Ingrid]

Thanks Tim!

I'm just off the phone to Robina having walked through v1 with her.

I'll take into consideration your points and hers and rework to version 1.1 tout de suite.

Your eagle eyes much appreciated for next version also...

Ingrid

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email and attachments are for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or legally privileged information or material that is copyright of Powerhouse Museum or a third party. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or distribute this e-mail without the author's prior permission. Any views expressed in this message and attachments are those of the individual sender and the Powerhouse Museum accepts no liability for the content of this message.